The Sun. — London, England, 1836-08-03 00:00:00

7 -... Such he believed to be the disposition of the people of Ire-i land, and that they were ready to sacrifice their own feelings and opinions when they saw a Government anxious to pro mote their interests. They had sent the Bill back, rejecting that which the Rolls° of Commons had declared was an inseparable part of it,---they had sent it back, increasing the amount of tithe to be paid, while they make the distribution of the Church revenues, if possible, more obnoxious than before. How then was tb a House of Commons to deal with it? As for himself he wouldnot depart from the principle which that House had more than once recognized.—(Cheers.) It might be for the House to consider whether, after hav ing solemnly affirmed a principle, because it had been re jected by the House of Lords, they should now re-consi der that resolution. If the Members of the House of Commons went with a Message to the bar of the House of Lords, agreeing to the change in the principle of the Bill, and acknowledging that they were in error, he (Lord J. Russell) would not accompany the House of Commons on such a message. He was prepared to stand by the principle he had advocated when out of office, and with the affirm ance of the opposite principle to that, of course it would be his duty to resign, and no longer pretend to govern the Councils of his Majesty.--(Loud cheers.) He would ask Bon. Members to consider at what settlement of the ques tion they could arrive. It had been said that the Bill as it now was would tranquillize Ireland, but nothing could be more wild or extravagant than such an idea.—( Hear.) He felt convinced that if the Bill was sent back to the House of Lords, agreeing in the amendments, so far from :its being a settlement of the question, it would be the be ginning of a fresh contest.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Look at the Catholic question —see the good that had been e ff ec t e d by that ; for the good that would be effected by it, he had the eloquent words of a Noble Friend—one ' , whom he should ever respect—Lord Brougham.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord then read an extract from the speech of Lord Brougham, in which the Noble Lord depicted, in the most eloquent terms, the deplorable state of Ireland, and the blessings that would be effected by passing the Catholic Relief Bill. At the time that great measure was passed, the great hero of the age was at the head of the Government, and he did not think that he compromised his magnanimity in granting the concessions he did to the Catholics.—(Loud cheers.) In his (Lord John Russell's) opinion, in granting those concessions, he had gained more l aurels, and had done more good for this country than he had effected by the numberless vic tories he had won—(Cheers)—and he would do more good towards relieving the present state of Ireland than any other person. The people of this country had been called upon to side against the people of Ireland—now on the ground of their religion —now on the ground of their being a different race.—(Cheers.) It had been attempted to excite against them a national feeling on the part of the English, that they were bound to resist the claims made upon them— a national feeling on the part of the Irish, that they could not hope for justice from England.—(Cheers.) No means had been spared to excite these feelings—(Cheers) —even forgery itself had been resorted to—(lmmense cheering) —and injustice had been perpetrated under the name of law—while feelings of hatred had been inculcated under the cloak of religion.—(Cheers.) Even if they left the tithe question unsettled, there was a feeling on the part of Ireland, that even though the Legislature was against them, while they had the present representativ e of the King they would obtain justice.—(Loud cheers.) Even with that question unsettled, and the Corporation question left over, under the influence of that noble person a very great improvement was observable in the country.— (Cheers.) If all these excitements, all these insults, all these marks of contempt towards the people of Ireland abetted, or supposed to be abetted by the Govern ment of that country, he would ask what there was in the Tithe Bill then which would pro mote tranquillity in that country? He was not afraid of proposing that the House should not agree to the Lords' amendments, because a large majority of the other HoUse had decided against them. He knew full well that on the American question those who con tended for justice to the Colonies were not one fourth of the whole House. He was told by a near rela tive that he had divided with Lord Chatham on the question, when only four Noble Lords divided with them. He trusted the House, in agreeing to the motion he was about to make, to refer the consideration of these amend ments till this day three months, would give their decided assent to the proposition, that the Bill which was now sent down from the Lords could not form the basis of a settlement in Ireland.—(Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) By doing that, they would do what was consistent with justice, and they would still be to the people of Ireland, that House of Representatives to which they would look for future redress.—(Cheers.) If they took the opposite course they might depend upon it they would be preparing the way for great evils. He was convinced that if the House pursued that course which it had hitherto adopted, that although their progress might be uncertain—although it might for some time be interrupted —yet they would at length have the reward of tranquillity and satisfaction in Ireland. They would not then have to re gret that they had preferred what was just—that they had preferred what was conciliatory --to the attempt of doing what was neither just nor conciliatory ; thereby maintaining the character which they ought to have as the House of Commons of England, and come what might finally, the triumph must be theirs. The Noble Lord sat down amidst loud and long-continued cheers. Sir R. PEEL then rose and said—Sir, the motion with which the Noble Lord has just concluded his speech is tan tamount to a postponement for another year of the settlement of the question of tithes in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) It ap pears that he submits this motion to the House on a double ground. In the first place, on a doubt which he entertains whether the amendments introduced in the Bill by the House of Lords are not an unconstitutional interference with the pri vileges of the House of Commons ; and, in the second place, on the specific merits of the case, and the impolicy of the al terations which they have wrought in this Bill by the subtrac tion of the appropriation clause. I shall endeavour to follow the Noble Lord on both his grounds of exce p t i on to t h ese amendments ; but, fi rs t, I maybe permitted to say that, if the former objection stated by the Noble Lord be a sound one—if the ground taken up by him of the interference of the other House with our constitutional privileges be a substantial one—it ought to be decidedly stated so, and made the ground of a preliminary obstacle to any further considera tion of, or proceedings with, this Bill.—(hear, hear.) Before we go further, I would :now submit to you, Sir, whether this is or is not the proper course for the deli berations of the House to take in the present state of the pro ceedings, arid I shall beg at once to appeal to you to say, in reference to this ground of objection adduced by the Noble Lord, whether the obstacles attaching to this interference are so great and sufficient as to warrant the throwing aside the present Bill as informal and unconstitutional, and then bring ing, in a new Bill to which such objections shall not attach ? ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord says that he agrees with the patriotic sentiment expressed by Mr. Pym, that our powers and privileges are not to be considered of importance as merely exercised for our own benefit, but for that of the whole kingdom ; and in that light they cannot be viewed as the airy and unsubstantial nothings which some have represented them. Sir, I shall not dissent from the views taken by the Noble Lord, and which he has illustrated by the authority referred to ; on the contrary, I call on him to take the course - which he has indicated the propriety of, and (if he really feels the importance of the objection to be equal to the stress he has laid on it in his address this evening) to join me in disposing of it as a preliminary point.—Hear, hear.) If he does, and if the Bill should thereupon be set aside, I give notice that I myself will bring in a new Bill on the subject, which will equally afford him an opportunity to maintain our constitutional privileges, and which will further give him the opportunity of bringing the question of Tithes in Ireland to a speedy settlement. —( Cheers.) If these privileges, then, are not mere airy and unsubstantial nothings, I think the Noble Lord should not content himself with merely hinting dislike in his speech to what he considers an unconstitutional interference therewith, but should place his opposition on record in the shape of an appeal to the House and the decision of its Speaker. —( Hear.) I fully agree with the opinions of Hatsell on this subject. He says-_" That we should studiously avoid cncoe 4 , raging jealousies or questions of rights andprivileges the two Houses. From the beginning- of th reser be`..ween . a period of above fourscore years, the claim of the P z . - '6 century, mons to their rights and privilege s in matt -louse of Com been seldom, or but faintly, controvertecP- -,rs of supply have t d he Lords. The rules which they have from time to tim own d to be observed haarceens;easne clinrdens upon in Bills of Aid, or in Bills imp,;m -g-efterally the people, have been very practice of both House; o f p arliames s e beenin ; and the has adapted to these rules, It perharps, be difficult tuonireprmlsy with precision and correctness the doctrine which isexforebe collected out of thee` precedents ; but, as far as my observa tions have ,y gene, I think th e f o ll ow i ng propositions contain pretty near;} everything which h as at any t i me been claimed by the Commons upon this subject : First, that in Bills of Aid w.id Supply, as the Lords cannot begin them, so they can. not make any alterations, either as to the quantum of the rate or the disposition of it, or, indeed, any amendment whatso ever, except in correcting verbal or literal mistakes ; and even these the House of Commons direct to be entered specially in -their journals, that the nature of the amendments may ap pear; and that no argument prejudicial to their privileges may be hereaft'r drawn from their having agreed to such amendments. Secondly, that in Bills which are not for the special grant o f upon supply but which, however, impose burthens people, such ' as Bills for turnpike roads, for nevi gti'ans, for paving, for managing the poor, &c., for which twls an d rates must' be collected—in these, though the Lords may make amendments, these amendments must not make any alteration in the quantum of the toll or rate, in the dis position or duration of it, or in the persons, commissioners, or collectors appointed to manage it. In all the other parts and clauses of these Bills, not relative to any of these mat ters, the Commons have not objected to the Lords making j Alterations o r amen d ments. Thirdly, where the Bill or the 3- .. ------ 4 -- ,,,itmendments made by the Lords appear to be of a nature 4, 41,-11;r.vdrukhough not im me di ate l y FoOf ,yet in th e i r consequences, ." ) 4 1 --7 - ' g a charge upon the people, the Commons have de )44e right of the Lords to make such amendments, ky r tire Lords have acq u i esce d. A nd, lastly, th e Com -- i r.sesert, that the Lords have no right to i nsert i n ), i evuniary peQalties orforfeitures, or to alter the pecu- niary forfeitures which haltp beers inserted by the Commons. These rules, witli respectiockhe passing or amending of Bills, are clear, distinct, and easy to beamderstood and applied in all the cases which may occur. It has been sometimes at tempted to extend its claim, on the part of the Commons, still further; or rather so to construe this claim as to tend very much to embarrass the proceedings of the House of Lords upon Bills sent from the Commons. This has never appeared to me a prudent measure. I think the House of Commons may rest satisfied with the observance of those rules, which they maintain upon the ground of ancient practice and ad mitted precedents. Their sole and exclusive right of begin ning all aids and charges upon the people, and not suffering any alterations to be made by the Lords, is sufficiently guarded by the claims as here expressed ; and it does not. seem to be either for their honour or advantage to push this matter fur ther; and, by affecting privileges which may be subjects of doubt and discussion, thereby to weaken their claim to those clear and indisputable rights which are vested in them by the Constitution, and have been confirmed to them by the constant and uniform practice of Parliament." In following up these just and prudent opinions, I may be permitted to say that it appears to me that it would be far better to waive at once the plea of constitutional privilege, and reject the Bill as amended on the question of its merits, than to litigate the point with the House of Lords, or leave the public in doubt of the har mony existing between the two Houses of British Legislature. ( Hear.) I hope the Noble Lord feels the force of this view of the case, and will consent to disembarrass the debate of this one of his grounds of objection. Lord J. RUSSELL and several Hon. Members on the Treasury benches here exclaimed " No, no." Sir R. PEEL continued—Then, Sir, I must appeal to you, and beg you will at once declare your sense of the case, whether the ground of objection taken by the Noble Lord is sufficient to merit the attention of the House? If you think it is, then I will at once go with him into the discussion of the question of privilege ; but I must say that it is not fair to leave a point of this nature subject to a doubt that can be so readily solved by an appeal to you, Sir. It is not right to mix up questions of privilege and policy, which can serve no other purpose than to entrap the younger Members of the House, and to catch a few stray votes, by embarrassing the feelings and judgments of those whose inexperience in these matters might lead them to range themselves in support of the privileges of this House, although the attack was only imaginary._( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had judiciously combined his grounds of objection, so as to make up a doubt ful case, suited to the most tender capacities.—( Laughter.) He seemed to say to his young friends, object on what what ground you please, choose which you will, but give us the benefit of the doubt, at all events.—(Cheers and laughter.) I asked him to confer with me on this point; but he prefers the effect of his speech on the sensibilities of the House.—( Hear, hear.) But it appears, if I understand him right, there arc four other grounds of objection to which he attaches importance. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the subjects to which he had alluded were the four parts of the Bill. Sir R. PEEL continued—l understood the Noble Lord to say, that he objects, in the first place, to the alteration from seventy per cent. to seventy-five. Lord J. RUSSELL never meant to raise a question on that point of difference, but he had called their attention to the consideration whether (there being a grant out of the Con solidated Eund included in the Bill) the Lords could consti tutionally interfere with the portion of it which provided for its application. Sir R. PEEL—WeII, then, Sir, as that is the most impor tant point, I think we ought to have the benefit of your opinion on the question of privilege, to pave the way to it. If, on the one hand, you think there is so much real ground of objection attaching to the amendments of the other House, as the No ble Lord does, I am ready to acquiesce, and to shape my course accordingly : but, if on the other, you agree with Mr. Hat sell, that it would be better not to raise a doubt of the respec tive rights and privileges of the two branches of the Legisla ture, then lam ready to go at once into the substantial points of the Bill. For my own part, I never understood that the surplus contemplated by this Bill was to go to the Consoli dated Fund.—( Hear, hear.) I thought, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the only legitimate purpose to which it could be applied was to further the efforts of the Board of National Education, not to be thrown into a common fund, for the alleviation of the public burthens, or to promote colonisa tion in New South Wales, or any other secular purpose that might be deemed expedient. Lord J. RUSSELL thought that that part of the Bill which gave a portion of the ecclesiastical revenues to the uses of the Board of National Education (and which portion was to be supplied directly out of the Consolidated Fund), being interfered with by the Lords' amendments, might bring that interference within the privileges of that House, and such would be highly objectionable as a matter of precedent. Ne vertheless, he had stated that, as the amendments made to the pecuniary clauses of this Bill did not interfere with any sup plies voted and intended by the House for his Majesty's ser vice, although they did with the good of Ireland, he thought that the House might allowably proceed with it as amended by their Lordships. Sir R. PEEL continued_l thought I heard the Noble Lord say, further, that there had been a good old time when, if such a Bill had been sent down by the Lords, so interfered with, it would have at once been rejected by the Speaker, and kicked, by the rest of the Members, out of the House. If the Noble Lord did not quote that as an example to be followed in the present day, he certainly expected to gain some votes at least by the feelings he was endeavouring to ex cite on the subject. Lord J. RUSSELL'S explanation was inaudible at our end of the gallery. Sir R. PEEL then sat down. The SPEAKER—As my opinion has been called for I shall endeavour to state it as clearly and briefly as I can, con sistently with the importance of the subject. If the Bill had been limited to a new distribution of the existing property of the Irish Church, I am of opinion that a difference between this House and the House of Lords as to the proportions in which that property should be distributed would not have been a violation of the privileges of the Commons. If the grant of 50,0001. per annum for education had been left in the Bill the Lords could not have diminished the amount of the con templated surplus, because that would have diminished the fund to be applied to the re-payment of the Consolidated Fund, and would have been inconsistent with the privileges of this House, because it would have increased the burdens of the people. The difficulty arises from the insertion of 50,0001. for education. In considering the Bill I have looked to the privileges of the Lords as well as of the Commons, and I feel that, that clause remaining, the Lords could have made no other amendment than to give a little more or less to the Clergy, but without altering the total amount. Still it may be said that this House has made a grant on the condition of the Lords agreeing to the whole Bill, and the question is, whether they might not contend that, that grant having been made, the Lords had no right to alter the Bill. This would he a strong assertion of privilege, and it was chiefly from this case being pointed at as a precedent that I think this question important. The House had, therefore, to consider whether they will press their privilege so far, or whether, if they con sent to agree with the Lords' amendments, they will not guard against the effect of the precedent by a special entry on their journals. Sir R. PEEL again rose and said —Now, Sir, as this diffi culty has been set aside by your decision, we shall have, I pre svme, no further doubts on that head, and may turn to a review of the amendments on their merits.--(A cry of " No, no.") I shall defer to the sense of the House ; but I understood that you, Sir, had so expressed yourself to that effect. I shall say this is my own impression. The SPEAKER was understood to intimate his assent. Sir R. PE EL continued—The Bill contained a vote of 50,0001. to education purposes, which it was directed should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund fur the present, because there was no surplus in hand. But the Lords had omitted the grant : and if they did it was, he conceived, done in the justi fiable exercise of their own right to amend the Bill as it might appear expedient. The SPEAKER explained that this House had made the grant in consideration of its being charged on the Consolidated Fund for the present ; and the question really was, whether the Bill should be returned to the Commons as it went to the House of Lords ? [The remainder of his observations did not reach us l. Sir R. PEEL continued—Then the question is disembar rassed of th e d ou b ts arising on the subject of interference with the constitutional privileges of this House, and I may, I hope, proceed to address myself to the second part of the Noble L or d' s o b jections. The Bill as sent down by the Lords will de c l : 4o from the amount of tithe composition 25 per cent. insfrad of 30. The Noble Lord says that he secs no reason :eny they should not adopt 30 per cent. ; and I may say with equal consis , ency that we can see no reason why he should not be satisfied with 25. We are told, however, that it is parti cularly absurd in us to refuse to alienate this sum of 50,000/. for the purposes of public instruction in Ireland when we have already consented to the transference of 25 per cent. of the incomes of the Clergy to the pockets of the landlords. But we consent to it on the understanding that it is only a just compensation for the transference i of liabilit y w hi ch accompa nies it. But, if you prove that tis too little, I w ill consent to the substitution of 30 per cent. inits place, but I must say that I think 25 per cent. appears fully sufheient. Th e Bill, as sent down by the Lords, subjects the landlcrds to that liability which will ensure the regular payment of tithes in future, while it relieves the poor tenantry from the vex atious p rocee di ngs hi t h erto ma d e on th em in its collection, and at the same time relieves the Clergy from the harsh ne cessity to which they were so long exposed of entering into collision with their flock to obtain a subsistence. The most satisfactory measures are adopted for the collection of tith e until Parlia ment shall otherwise provide for its redemption, and the arrangement for the support of the Clergy from a less objectionabl e f und. Now the collectors are not the indivi duals concerned, but the authorities appointed by Parliament. A gradual reform of the whole establishment is provided for ; benefices above the value of 500/. per annum, and with a Protestant population not exceeding 100 souls, are to be reduced. The Bill f urt h er subjects to the care of the Lord Lieutenant in Council to provide that no benefice shall in future include more than thirty square miles, or be increased beyond 300/. per annum, if situate in the country. It also pro vides that there shall be a separate fund established to pay off charges on benefices, and the surplus shall be applied to the building of glebe houses, the enlargement of churches or chapels, and the augmentation of small benefices. It surely cannot be deemed . unreasonable to a p p l y such a surplus to the purpose of providing glebe houses, when it is recollected that there are only 850 glebe houses in Ireland, while there are 1,230 benefices. Thus there were yet 400 glebe houses ab solutely wanted before the Prot es t ant Mi nisters could be ac commodated with residencies to attend to their spiritual duties ; and, I will ask, can there be any more consistent application of the surplus? The Noble Lord called their attentio n to t h e despair that the poor farmer would feel if the surplus saved SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1836, from the payments he was forced to make to the ecclesiasti cal funds was applied to meet the wants of a dista-it county.—( Hear, hear.) But it appears that the Noble Lord's good intention for the benefit of residents extends only to the cases of country parishes—it does not apply to towns, and the inhabitants of Dublin and Belfast will not profit by its But I confess I was rather surprised that the author of the English Tithe Bill should be the individual to raise such an outcry on behalf of the poor. Irish farmer, while he was intro ducing in it the opposite principle of applying savings to one county to supply deficiencies at a distance.—( Loud cheerints.) I did not think that the Noble Lord would be the first to fur nish the lion. Members for Durham with such an argument against his plan for diverting the revenues of that see away from the reach of the impoverished farmers of that county to relieve the deficiencies that might exist in Nottingham.— ( Cheers.) With respect to the omission of the education clause by the Lords, on which so much stress has been laid, it is evident that if the clause had been so altered as to in clude that object, it wonld have been fatal to the Bill, as they would thereby have been intrenching on a money clause. But now, I say, to prevent any further objections on that head—. propose what sum may be necessary for the education of the people of Ireland, and we will consent to its appropriation.— (Cheers.) I say, further, that such a sum ought to.be voted, riot out of the insufficient ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, but out of the Consolidated Fund of this country.—( Hear.) I decidedly think that no system of national education is cal culated to take in Ireland, unless founded on the great lead ing truths in which we all concur. I shall, therefore, not ob ject to any bona fide application of national funds for such a national purpose, but I do object to the appropriation of ecclesiastical funds for that purpose,—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble Lord now advises the House to reject this amended Bill, because it does not contain the resolution adopted in April, 1833. That resolution had the effect of removing the Administration of which I was the head. It fulfilled its object ; but having done so, I may be permitted to ask, as it is wise to persist in it now, without any real be nefit to be derived from such pertinacity ?—( Hear.) The Noble Lord says he will not consent to take all the improve ments offered in the Bill, because it does not recognize a surplus, and its appropriation to secular purposes ; but there is no surplus.—( Hear, hear.) Give me the ratio of income you have already allotted for the Irish dignitaries, and which I contend are utterly inadequate, either for high or for low ; and even so, I will deny that you have a sur plus. But I entirely protest against the mode in which you have made your calculations ; and then I must say that the course you have adopted to insure a surplus, in accordance therewith, is still more objectionable. The Noble Lord says if we do not reject this Bill—if we make ourselves responsible for the non-adjustment and non-settlement of this question— what hopes can we entertain of peace in Ireland? Will the Noble Lord tell me what hopes we can have of satisfaction and peace in Ireland if we were to pass the Bill as originally framed ? Does the Noble Lord read the declarations daily made on the subject in the public newspapers and in popular assemblies? Is it rational to believe that when the Roman Catholic tenants and occupiers, who now refuse to pay tithe in any shape, are called on to pay five pence to their landlord as a charge for tithe, they will be perfectly satisfied after we have entirely unsettled the question, because 4d. of that sd. only will go to the Protestant minister; and that this sudden and entire satisfaction is to be expected from them because the remaining penny will be devoted—to what purpose ? Not to the immediate provision for education, for that is not to be made till the claims of all existing incumbents are satisfied— scarcely for the ultimate purposes of education ; for wherever education is required it is to be provided for out of the Consoli dated fund, and to the re-payment of that Consolidated Fund is this remaining penny to be devoted.— ; (Hear, hear.) I can not understand on what grounds you expect the acquiescence of the Irish Catholics.—( Hear, hear.) Their resistance, we have been often told, both in this House and out of this House, does not arise from the amount claimed so much as from the opposition to the principle on which it is claimed. Now, I say it is not the amount of the sum taken from the Church which constitutes the chief ground of my objection, but it is that I object to any alienation of Church property whatever.— ( Hear.) Ido not think the wit of man could devise a mode of alienation more objectionable than that contained iu this Bill. My objection is to the principle of the alienation, and not to the amount. I can conceive that a Government, urged by some great necessity, may take away front a man, contrary to the usual course of law, a portion of his possessions, in the shape of a forced contribution. I can conceive that, under the influence of some overwhelming necessity, the inhabitants of towns might be forced to contribute a portion of their worldly goods. This would be bad enough ; the hardship would be great and the injustice grievous ; still such a demand would be limited and definite, and no right or claim would be set up to the remainder of the property, and the tyrant claims of stern necessity ought in some measure to justify your pro ceedings ; but here a forced contribution is to be raised, without any similar justification, without any similar neces sity. This sum of 50,0001. a year, if you want it for the pur pose, can be easily taken from other sources. Here is not, as in the case of the forced contribution, any specific demand. You do not say that you require of the Church 100,000 Z, or any other sum, and then leave it an independent corporation regulating its own concerns, and clearly entitled to its remain ing property; but you lay down the vague principle that, after providing for the spiritual wants of the Protestant population, the whole remainder belongs to the people of Ireland. In what light then do you place the Protestant ministers of that country ?—( Hear.) You bid the Catholic population of Ire land to consider them in the light of interlopers, diverting from them their property for purposes to which they are de cidedly opposed.—( Hear, hear.) Who is to say what consti tutes the legitimate wants of the Protestant community of Ireland? These wants will vary with every Administration— they will vary with every majority. The Noble Lord would leave the Church in Ireland subject to the controul of a Com mittee of the Privy Council, indefinite in point of number. To this I entirely object. I object to the nature of the de pendence which it establishes on the Government, a depend ence perfectly indefinite in its nature—as undefinable as the demand which they may make for the purposes of education. —(Hear.) The Noble Lord says he relics much on the force of public opinion on this measure. Sir, as far as we have the means of ascertaining the bias of public opinion since the dis cussion of this question in April, 1835, it does not confirm the Noble Lord's proposition. The Government has been in of fice ; whatever influence office may confer in favour of a principle espoused by the Government has been theirs. There have since then been many vacancies. Have those vacancies been decided in favour of that principle or have they not ?—( Cheers.) The House has now before it what will be generally ad mitted to be in most respects an useful and conciliatory set tlement of the tithe question in Ireland—a settlement re commended by a large majority of the House of Lords, sup ported by a powerful minority in the House of Commons—a minority approaching within twenty-seven of the last occa sion of division. The opinions of the Legislature were di vided, and of the House of Commons nearly balanced. You have had since the opinion for what you are now contending was embodied in a resolution thirty-one vacancies. When that resolution was voted in April last the occupiers of those scats (if my calculations be correct) voted in favour of your principle in the proportion of twenty-one to ten. Of the Members of those seats which have since become vacant yoe had then a clear majority of more than two to one. If I mistake not the representatives of those scats either did on the last occasion, or will on the present, vote on this question in the proportion of sixteen to fifteen, being nearly an equality instead of, as at first, two to one.—(Loud cheers.) I cannot, therefore, consider this indication of public opinion, so far as it is to be collected from inter vening vacancies, justify the Noble Lord in the reliance that he places on that opinion as being in favour of his mea sure. The Noble Lord says, " What ! shall we go suppliant to the House of Lords, and retreat from a principle which we solemnly embodied in the Bill sent up to them?" Why, the Noble Lord has already consented to adopt such a course upon an occasion not utterly dissimilar. The Noble Lord contrives to realise as much good as possible. Though he approved of the principle of the 147th clause, yet, fearing he must relin quish the good contained in the rest of the Bill if lie insisted on the present enforcement of that principle, he considered it perfectly consistent with honour, prudence, and sound policy to forego that principle and obtain all the good that was set within his grasp—to take those advantages which were imme diately attainable, and to leave questions of doubtful and dis puted advantage for after discussion.—(Hear.) Why not take this even course on the present occasion ? You say that a clear surplus will ultimately exist ; but you admit there is little pro bability of it for some years to come ; and yet you insist on the present enforcement of a principle which, if now carried by the Legislature, could not possibly be carried into practice. I objected at the time to the resolution embodying this prin ciple. I feared the consequences which have resulted from it. I regarded it as fatal to the future calm, practical, rational, and unbiassed discussion of this question ; and though I know you will not retract that fatal step, yet I am sure there is no Member who hears me to whom the difficulty in which we are now placed will not operate as a warning of the great constitutional danger of embodying principles in resolutions before the proper time for discussing it arrives. —(Great cheering.) Sir, the Noble Lord contends that the acceptance of the Bill will be for the benefit of the Church itself, and that by passing this Bill we shall provide the only adequate security for the collection of the revenues which this Bill leaves to the Church. The Noble Lord reminds us of the American war—of the concessions demanded by the inhabit ants of the United States—demanded and refused—and made only when concession was too late. Let me tell the Noble Lord that the question after all to be considered is, whether the same principles which dictated those con cessions applies to this case whether the demand it self be a reasonable and a just one, or whether it be a demand of a totally opposite character ; and if, as I contend it is, the latter is the case, then the analogy drawn from former concessions does not apply.—(Hear.) When this Bill was brought forward last year by the chief of the Government in the other House, he did not urge the acceptance of the Bill on the ground of ensuring safety to the Church. The Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire had quoted the passage to the Noble Lord opposite, who admitted that the speech did not bear him out as quoted, but produced a revised and corrected copy. Those words I will again quote, for they show in the strongest possible light how delusive are the hopes held out of security to the Protestant Church from the adoption of this principle. The Noble Premier said, "I am deeply sensible and much concerned at one result of this mea sure. I feel that this Bill may, and I cannot conceal from myself that it will be, in the first instance;;;dieraCertain time a heavy blow and a great discouragement to Protestantism in I' eland—(Loud cries of " Hear, heat")—that it will be also a great triumph to the adverse party.— ( Hear.) I rAmit the great peril and danger which necessarily attends upon and accompanies such mighty and fundamental changes, and that the shake and convulsion they create render f doubtful the safety not only of the Established Church, but of the Constitution of the country."_( Great cheering.) I agree in this, and seeing the assurances which you gave at the Union with respect to the Protestant Church—seeing the hope that you held ottt at the removal of civil disabilities, that, so far from permitting it to prejudice, it should increase the security of the Church—l greatly doubt, whatever be the alterriative, that it is either justice or policy to give that ter rible, that heavy blow to Protestantism in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) If that Wavy be inevitable, this I know, that ice are much more likely to take some security against its prejudicial effects by resisting the force of it, and by standing erect against it, than by lending cur arms to aid the vigour of that blow.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) If that heavy blow must be given, my hand at least will not unite in the stroke. If the. cheer of adverse triumph must be raised, our voices at least shall not swell the unholy shout. If the pillars of the Church and the Constitution itself must undergo a shake and a convulsion, then we, seeing no absolute necessity for this injustice, protest against the policy of it, and refuse to be your accomplices.— ( Loud cheers.) I move, therefore, that the Lords' amend ments be now taken into considssation. Mr. E. DENISON saw no "Eason for the House giving up the principle which it had embodied in the Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet professed not to believe in the existence of any surplus, and perhaps if the Bill left the question of the disposal of the surplus to be dealt with till the surplus arose, it might meet the full justice of the case.---( Cheers from the Opposi tion ) But, under all the circumstances, he approved of the course recommended by the Noble Lord, and lie would sup port his motion. Lord SA NDON deprecated the rejection of a measure fraught with much good to Ireland. He defied Hon. Gentle men opposite to show any practical advantage originally con templated by this Bill of which it was now deprived. Were the real interests of the people of Ireland to be sacrificed to a point of honour? The real grievance, they bad often been told was, that the Catholics of Ireland were called on to pay the Priests of another religion. Did the Noble Lord propose to remove that grievance? Quite the contrary; he proposed to confirm it. The real interests of Ireland would be sacri ficed to party spirit.—( Cheers and counter cheers.) Mr. HUME said that the party spirit of which the Noble Lord complained was to be found in the ranks of those who opposed Ministers on this occasion. Seeing the advantages which the country had derived already from having got rid of the Noble Lord opposite and his party in the Government, were they again to run the hazard of another experiment with such men ? If the Noble Lord, and those with whom he acted, were really the friends of Ireland, and wished to confer upon that country the benefits which they affected to desire, why did they refuse to give up for the attainment of such an end a principle which they themselves called a shadow? He supported the Bill of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) be cause he considered it a better measure than that sent down from the Lords, although he confessed that, in his opinion, neither of them was sufficient to meet the wants and demands of the people of Ireland.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) He repeated that neither Bill went far enough; but of the two he would take that which was calculated to produce the most good. He begged it, however, to be understood that, in supporting the Bill of the Noble Lord, he was not com promising himself not to demand a more extensive measure of Church Reform when time and circumstances should make it advisable to do so.—(lmmense cheers from the Opposition.) What did those cheers amount to ? Did the Hon. Gentlemen opposite pretend to say that their own measure must be a final one ?—( Hear.) If so he would at once reject it, upon that account. The Noble Lord's Bill he preferred, because it was a thousand times better than the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, both for a fair distribu tion of the revenues of the Church, and the general ameliora tion of the condition of the Irish people. The people of Ire land had already begun to feel a just confidence in the dispo sition of the present Government to do them justice and grant them their rights.--(" Oh I") Yes, their rights. To be sure the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Sandon) said that he granted this and granted that, but he (Mr. Hume) did not want any of the Noble Lord's grants. He demanded for the people their rights. It was the disposition which the present Government had shown to do justice that gave the people of Ireland a moral confidence in them. That the Govern ment had many faults he too well knew ; but they might live and mend.—(Laughter.) One of their greatest faults, in his opinion, was that they were constantly preferring their enemies to their friends.--( Cheers and laughter.) He spoke seriously and feelingly upon this point.--(Loud laughter.) The people of Ireland saw in the Nobleman who at present governed them a sure guarantee that, with the aid of the pre sent Government, and the progress of a little time, full and substantial justice would be done to them, and the greatest advantages worked out for the country. It was, he thought, a question of some importance to that House whether or not the people of Ireland were to be treated with contempt and insult by the House of Lords. To what was it that they owed the remarkable decrease of crime in Ireland of late but to the confidence which the people had in the present Govern ment ? With respect to the principle involved in the present measure, he need not tell Hon. Gentlemen opposite what his opinion was upon that principle, because he had so often re peated in that House that he looked upon all Church pro perty, both in England and Ireland, as the property of the public. With this view, was it not his duty to support any measure for applying that principle in the way likely to pro duce the most good ? It was the duty of the House itself to follow up the principle of this Bill, and deprive of Church preferment those who had no duty to perform in that Church. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had ad dressed them with an air of great triumph—not, indeed, those on his (Mr. Hume's) side of the House, but those who sat behind himself.—(oh, and laughter.) Yes, it was to those gentlemen that the Right Hon. Baronet always turned round and addressed himself, and he asked them in triumph did. they think 2001. a-year too much to give a Protestant Clergyman in Ireland who had the cure of souls ? But did not the Right Hon. Baronet recollect that there were in England 5,230 Curates of the Established Church whose average incomes was only 811. a-year ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Were the Hon. Gentleman opposite to have one doctrine for England and an other for Ireland ? It was impossible to give credit for principle to men who acted thus. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that he was opposed altogether to the principle of alienation ; and if he were so why did he deem it necessary to go into any details? Why did he not take his stand against alienation, as he (Mr. Hume) took his stand for alienation? He (Mr. Hume) would have clergymen paid on the same principle that soldiers and sailors were paid.—( Hear, and laughter.) Yes, and he looked upon it that clergymen were far below soldiers and sailors in the services they rendered to the country. But the truth was that the whole of this struggle was for the loaves and fishes.—(Cheers from both sides of the House.) It was all a love of money.—( Cheers and laughter.) The struggle was how to make the most money of the Church, and to pay as little as possible to those who did the most work. The Noble Lord ( Sandon) had said that there was no surplus, and that there could be none. If so, why did the Noble Lord quarrel with a shadow ? If the Government gave up the principle of appropriation maintained in the Bill which they had sent up to the House of Lords, they would be de graded for ever as public men, and would be inflicting a deep injury upon the country and the cause which they had espoused. The Right Hon. Baronet opposite, whom he regretted not to see just then in his place, had spoken of the small majority of twenty-six by which the principle of appropriation was supported; but did the Right Hon. Baronet forget his own speech when he was taking leave of office ? In that speech the Right Hon. Baronet had said that he had hoped to break down the majority of twenty that first ap peared against him, but, finding that he was unable to do so, and that the majority had increased to so large a number as twenty-seven ,he thought it his duty to resign.— (Ministerial cheers.) Yet, after this, the Right Hon. Baronet said that the Government ought not to persevere with so small a majo rity as twenty-six. Hon. Gentlemen opposite really forgot themselves. They were like the animals that thought no one could see them but themselves. They were like the Chinese eye, that thought no eye equal to it. He would recommend the Right Hon. Baronet to read his own speech made to his own Parliament, where lie confessed that he could not go on with a majority of twenty-seven against him. But then the Right Honourable Baronet said that he had the Lords with him. What cared he (Mr. Hume) about the Lords ? (Laughter.) Let the Lords confine themselves to their own Chamber. What community of feeling was there be tween the Lords and the people of this country ? And could it be said that the people of England were adverse to the claims of the Irish nation ? They called themselves, he be lieved, sometimes the hereditary protectors of the poor; but did the poor look upon them as protectors at all? The fact was that the people now saw through them. He and those on his side of the House acted upon principle, but the Hon. Gentleman opposite acted altogether upon party feeling. He was happy to see the Right Hon. Baronet now in his place —( Sir R. Peel had that moment entered and taken his seat) —and he would shortly inform him of what he had been say ing.—(" Oh, oh 1" and laughter.) He was not going to re peat the whole of his speech over again—( Loud laughter)— but briefly to remind the Right lion. Baronet of his allusion to the small majority of twenty-six, and of the fact that the Right Hon. Baronet himself, while holding the fortress of the Government, and in actual possession of the citadel, was obliged to surrender to a majority of twenty-seven. Could the Right lion. Baronet hope to succeed, then, with a ma jority of twenty-six now against him, and the fortress out of his possession ? He feared that the Hon. Gentleman opposite indulged too much in thinking of the good old times that were gone by, and in dreaming of good new times to come. But if those on his (Mr. Hurtle's) side of the House were true to themselves, and true to the cause of the people and of good government, there was no doubt that they must be suc cessful. All the co:mtry now wanted was to get rid of the party opposite—and cf the evil influence of that party. If they were destroyed, he could see no end to the prosperity of the country.—(Cheers.) He should give his most cordial support to the motion of the. Noble Lord, which he had no doubt would be carried by a larger majority than that which compelled the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to give up the reins of Government. Mr. SHAW could have wished that the Hon. Gentleman had favoured the House With the species of animals to which he had alluded, as thinking that no one saw them but them selves.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman had very candidly confessed that it was a party question ; but then he said that the party feeling was all on his (Mr. Shaw's) side of the House. But the Hon. Gentleman seemed to differ very widely from the Government which he supported upon this question; for the Hon. Gentleman avowed that he did not look to this as a final measure, but maintained the principle of alienation, while the Noble Lord opposite declared that he viewed the present Bill as leading to a final settlement of the question. In his (Mr. Shaw's) opinion the real question was whether under the present circumstances of the Established Church in Ireland, it would be right, or just, or expedient, to apply its revenues to any oth er th an it s own proper purposes. It was surprising, after all that had been said and written upon the subject, that the real state of the Church did not seem as yet seem 10 have reached the minds of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were so enamoured of their principle of ap propriation that they seemed utterly blind to every other consideration. Now what was the real amount of the Church property of Ireland ? The Hon. Member for Middlesex at one time rated it at 3,000,000/., but that delusion was now completely removed. The Church property of Ireland, in cluding tithes, glebes, Ministers's money, income of Bishops, vestry cess, and every other item was 613,114/. 10s., including the reduction of 251. per cent. He would take it in round numbers at 600,0(101. This statement did not rest merely upon his assertion—it was taken from authentic documents. Of this sum the parochial clergy and perpetual curates received 400,0001., the Bishops and other dignitaries of the Church, 100,000/., and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 100,000/. more, making altogether 600,0001. It was said that the average in come of 2001. a year was too high for the Irish Protestant Clergy, inasmuch as there were great numbers of the Pro testant Clergy of England whose average income was not more than 80/. a year. He could not see the force of this ar gument. The friends of the Established Church would be most ready and willing to improve the situation of the English Protestant clergy, if it was in their power to do so, and if cir cumstances would admit of it. But because many of the Pro testant clergy of England were underpaid, was that any rea son why the Irish Church and the Protestant clergy of Ireland should be robbed ? There were in Ireland two thousand resident clergy, including curates. Now what was their average income what was the sum allowed them to support themselves and their families ? Not more, on an average, than 2001. a year. It might be said that the Clergy were too numerous for the duties that were to be performed. He believed, however, that no person who considered the subject dispassionately would say that they were too numerous. Could any person reasonably complain of the income of the twelve Bishops ? The income of all the Bishops put together was not so much as three non-resident proprietors drew from the country. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had about 105,000/, a-year. Of this sum the vestry cess took away 60,0001. a-year, and, including all the charges upon this fund in the hands of the Commissioners, their surplus did not exceed 0 5,000/. Twenty years must elapse before their in come could become equal to their expenditure, and it would take twenty years more—that was up to 1873—before they would have a surplus above the necessary expenditure; and what would be the amount of that surplus ? Lord Grey cal culated that the charge for the building of glebe houses, the building and repair of churches, would be 146,000/. ; so that, in place of a surplus, there would be a deficiency of 46,0001., and the perpetual fund would never be equal to the charge upon it. The Noble Lord (Morpeth) took his surplus at 97,000/. ; but he altogether omitted various items which, had he taken them into account, would more than equal his 97,000/. There was the item of clergy tax, 10,000/. ; sine cures, 20,000/. ; overcharge for glebes, 76,0001. The Noble Lord also gave thirty acres of land to each glebe; but he made no reduction under this head. Lord MO RPETH said he did make allowance for this. Mr. SHAW proceeded—He was not aware the Noble Lord had done so. The Noble Lord made no reduction for the building of glebes, which would be eleven thousand pounds more. These sums, taken together, amounted to one hundred and thirty-four thousand pounds, considerably more than suf ficient to exhaust his surplus of ninety-seven thousand pounds. With regard to non-residence in Ireland, great misrepresenta tion had gone abroad. Out of fourteen hundred Clergy, there were twelve hundred of them resident, and one hundred who held other livings. Non-residence was every day becoming less prevalent ; and unions, another subject of complaint, were every day dissolved ; and as regarded pluralities, the Church of Ireland was rapidly improving. The tendency of the Bill brought in by Ministers was, not to promote residence or to dissolve unions, but the very contrary. It did not contain one provision having any tendency to improve the condition and promote the efficiency of the Church of Ireland. Those who supported the Ministerial measure said their object was to in troduce and give support to a general, efficient, and united plan of education, in the benefits of which all classes of the popula tion of Ireland, no matter what their religion might be, might equally partake ; andthat, to effect this object, they would ap propriate any surplus of Church revenue that might arise.— ( Hear.) Now, was it not contrary to reason—was it not con trary to common sense—to expect that the system proposed to be acted upon could produce union and cordiality, when the way in which it was to be supported was by de priving the Protestant Church of its revenues ?—( Hear. ) The Clergy could not starve ; the law must protect them in the maintenance of their rights. Government could not re fuse them this protection. He believed the majority of the Clergy of Ireland would be better pleased if they were left to the protection of the law; they would prefer that to any ar rangement that had been hitherto proposed. He did not, however, agree with the majority in this. On the contrary, he wished to see a lasting and satisfactory settlement of the question. He called upon Ministers, and upon the House to enter upon that settlement now, and not allow themselves to be prevented from finally disposing of the question because they would not give up a barren principle. Let them, here after, if they pleased, introduce another Bill, founded on the principle of appropriation. If the Gentlemen opposite who now supported the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) should here after think that it suited their own views they might turn this principle against himself, and the Government of which he formed a part. They might, on bringing up the Mutiny Bill, or any other Bill, refuse the supplies, unless it was accom panied with a clause establishing the principle of universal suffrage, vote by ballot, or any other political opinion they en tertained. Mr. Sergeant O'L OGHLIN said there were two questions before the House. One called upon them to dissent from the amendments of the other House of Parliament; and the other to concur in the measure as sent down to them. One who had not heard or read former debates in that House on the Irish tithe question would suppose that the present propo sition from the opposite side of the House was quite a new one. In point of fact, it amounted only to this—to take 25 per cent. from the Clergy and to give it to the landlords ; and they were told that such a settlement would be final and satis factory. Now, in 1834 a Bill was sent up to the other House, calling for an abatement of 40 per cent., and it was rejected by a majority of 67. Now, contrasting the observations matte by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) on the measure of 1834 with those which fell from him upon the present occa sion, it was impossible not to feel surprise that the Right Hon. Gentleman could entertain a hope that the present proposal would lead to a final settlement. In the debate which took place on the 4th of August, 1834, the Right Hon. Gentle man said that by the measure then before the House two-fifths of the tithes were to be given to the landlords. It would be folly, said the Right Hon. Gentleman, to think that a proposition in volving such gross injustice could succeed, and even if it did, that two-fifths would not satisfy Ireland.—( Hear.) Now, how ever, the Right Hon. Gentleman contended that an abatement of 25 per cent. would settle the question finally and satisfac torily.—(Loud cheers.) Was there any reason to hope that the proposition involved in the Bill sent down to them would give satisfaction ? The people of Ireland could hope to de rive no benefit whatever from the principle of this Bill. The Hon. Gentleman on the opposite side said they resisted upon principle the appropriation of Church revenue to any but Church purposes. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) seemed, indeed, to relax a little, and to yield upon this occa sion some little of the sternness of his former opposition. If no part of the Church property was to be alienated, he should like to know why 25 per cent. of Church property was to be given to the landlords ?—( Hear, hear.) They might talk as much as they pleased about principle, and the inviolability of Church property, but here they departed from the principle. Nothing could be expected but resistance to the payment of the reduced rent-charge if this Bill should pass. They must pass again through the same riots, disturbance, and opposition. Sooner or later, either under a Whig or Tory Government, the principle of appropriation must be adopted. He was not disposed to take any part, or but a very small part, in this de bate, were it not for a charge which was reported as having been brought against him in another place by a Right Rev. Prelate—a charge involving his character as a Member of that House and as a servant of the Government.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") His name appeared on the Bill as one of those by whom it was introduced. He did not shrink from any responsibility that might attach to him as a Member of that House or as a servant of the Government ; but it so happened that he had not read a line of the Bill till it was put into his hands by a Member of the Government. This circumstance was made the ground of a most unwarrant able charge against him. He found in one of the public papers observations attributed to a Right Rev. Prelate charg ing him with a violation of his oath in attaching his name to the Bill. He believed these observations were attributed to the Right Rev. Prelate unjustly, and he was the more satisfied of this from what took place on the presentation of a petition in 1834 in the other House of Parliament. That petition contained an allegation against the motives and conduct of the Irish Roman Catholic Members of the House of Commons of a kind precisely similar to the one to which he was now re ferring. It was met by the Right Rev. Prelate, who opposed its reception, saying that "the petition must be rejected, be cause it contained a charge against Members of the other House of Parliament of having violated the oath taken by them on their entrance into that House by their votes and proceedings with respect to the Protestant Estab lished Church. A petition containing such language was unfit to be received."—(Ministerial cheers.) Such being the language used by the Right Rev. Prelate in 1834, he (Mr. O'Loghlin) could certainly with difficulty bring himself to believe that he could have been guilty of the argument at tributed to him in 1836. He had another reason why lie could scarcely bring himself to believe that the Right Rev. Prelate had used the words attributed to him, and that wss, that in a pamphlet referred to in the Report of the Commissioners of Education, the writer of that pamphlet, in alluding to some statement made by a Roman Catholic Archbishop, gave that Roman Catholic Archbishop credit for having, in the opinion to which he was adverting, acted conscientiously upon his oath, and stated that he believed him on his oath. This pamphlet, which some person had taken the liberty of publishing, was attributed to the Right Rev. Prelate, and it moreover con tained a statement that some facts which had been put forth by the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Whateley), by Dr. Car lisle, and some other individuals, were not true. Yet when he (Mr. O'Loghlin) found the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Whateley), Dr. Sandys, Dr. Carlisle, the Presbyterian clergy man, and the members of the Board of Education in Ireland, branding the author of the pamphlet in question as a slanderer, and a violator of one of the commandments of God, he felt that lie was bound to believe that the fabricator of the charges thus branded was also indeed the individual to whom the ut terance of that most unwarrantable charge bad been attri buted.—( Hear, hear.) But, from whatever quarter it came, he did not hesitate to pronounce it a foul and false calumny.— (Ministerial cheers.) It implied a doctrine to which he could never be brought to agree—that, as a Member of that House, he was not at liberty to give his opinion on whatever question came before it, without being subjected to the charge of having perjured himself.—(Renewed cheers.) Why, if that doctrine were propounded no Roman Catholic ought to sit in that - House.—( Ironical opposition cheers.) Hon. Gentic Ate posits might, perhaps, think that right—( More Abe did not blame them ; but what hesaid was, that once a n u ld tie/ doctrine propou n d e d by th e Ri g ht Rev. Prelate , 't ied e el would not be acti ng cons i s t en tl j unless they exP ell b e ar.) Roman Catholic Member from that House.—(Hoar, °f th e He knew of no such person as one called a npresentati!eus,., to, people, and at the same time not at liberty conscientioes.''.., express his opinions on questions affecting their inter . e t opi . (Hear.) Was a Roman Catholic Member to go hY t bl , ber to nion of the majority or the minori7N, or was he net r t t trust to his own judgment as his o'nly safe guide Totested the only guide for a Member of that House, and he too bat against every other.—( Hear, hear.) Again, lie ask ed ' testan t standard was he to refer? If th e opinions of the Pr ° a d v ert Members were assumed to b e th e standard —he did no t Id t he to the subject in the way of a t aun t—but when he fou, con- Hon. and Learned Recorder f or Dublin support in g t ;bat °f position principle of this Bill, after having oppose t olcc 1834, how was he to know what c hanges might her at' fie place in the views of the Hon. and 'Learned Mernbcr'ctio had heard Hon. Members opposite denounce the ed u ica D o system in Ireland as anti• Ch r isti an , yet lie found them ! rid to longer denou nc i n g it. H ow th en was it po ssible to coy to the!`j o t he Roman Catholic Members not to vote according science ? If he wanted a still more convincing illustra!l,o, the conduct which had been heretofore putsued as regardloa question of Emancipation furnished hint with it, forbed forth the Right Rev. Prelate, whose expressions had ea" e , these remarks, opposing in 18 0 7 the measure \Vhieh da ported in 1829, w h en b roug h t f orwar d by his politicall In truth, th ere was no stan d ar d o f opinion 09 s ucl i n taint jects ; and h e re p ea t e d th at i t was impossitle to O li a lci Ito as regarded th e R oman C a th o li c s, that 0:4 sc n o t wo bound by any obligation supposed to be imposed ° d .bat by the opinions o f o th ers . —(H ear , hear.) He denie close the adherence to the principle of the appropriatin involved any attack upon theChurchEstablishmela in the Long, indeed, would he hesitate before coaling o f the conclusion that the appropriation of surplus riled g q „ pre' Church to th e p ur p oses o f e d uca ti o n was not a strict ' a we' testant use of those funds. It had been said thai; die i n . u po o 'lance of the Establish men t was in point of fact a charr th , of the Protestant l an dl or d s o f I re l an d, because ni ne' tentakilig the landlords of Ireland were Protestants. But, eve n n the this statement as fact, it seemed to him a severe satire o n nine-tenths of the proprietors of Ireland, that out of °P o o. of 600,000/. a year they had not, according to their e o f count, enough to leave any surplus for the purl iose_s r oioo tional education, after having provided r eligioul i ie s . . t ;Ae s to fur 850,000 Protestants. How stood the Presilt e " - e itbe t this respect ? They were by no means dimini 50 3 0_ t heir, in numbers or in zeal, yet they contrived to rottint al o iL pl e religious instructors for something less. The P am be; Ireland found the comparison forced upon t ope ban d tween the two religious persuasions. On the ° n t v o the Protestant Church required 600,0001. a Ye ar „,hTe f ° ,. r vide religious instruction f or 850 , 000 P r otestants , " l ore' the same provision for 642,000 Presbyterians a sum th a t the than 25,000/. was requir e d. It wou ld n ot appear t d to al Presbyterians were sufferi ng f rom t h e i r being con fitle small an amount. Did a n y one sincerely believe that o eb er, would be made, or the influence of the Protestant CI:et:01y; tended, by the terrors of writs o f re b e llion or long bills of costs ?—( Hear, hear.) He denied that h° enemy of the Protestant Church, or of the Protestand,4o gion. He would rather say that the enemy of that. t 7,10 was he who in any way endeavoured, by political In to e . or otherwise, to raise it to a station which it ought no t , v ibe: cupy ; and that he also was an enemy of the hure.ce halo instead of devoting himself to the spreading ( 4. P ea n o te ll good will among men, entered into political strife, a ed p ar showed himself to be the slave of those bad and bigot dt ini sions which disfigure h uman na t ure , an d reckless in see sr any calumny which bigot r y an d ma li ce could frame k Millis' noyance of his politic a l o pp onen t. —(Cheers from tue terial benches.) a oassiag Sir J. GRAHAM felt himself obliged to ghT notice to a part of the speech which had • t failltenahldee if just Hon. and Learned Gentleman on the subject. A blius e t the oath of the Roman Catholic Members. He ° a " b g " •elain ts ' ff been a strenuous supporter of the Roman Catholic (oro be had he not felt assured that the Roman Catholic N o Fr, would be bound by an oath as strict as that imposedio it testant Members, he certainly would not have voted for wig° (" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell.) More than th,,i bl an Hon. Friend of his, Mr. Wilmot Horton, endeavie.,u'ifelr a motion in that H ou s e t o res t r i ct th e R o man Cath r ,t, i- re h ' h a bers from voting o n cer t a i n ma tt ers re l at i ng to the 1 - 1 “ - heca Sir James Graham) wou ld no t agree to that motion, gyre' he felt that unless th e y were b oun d by a general oath, !' t heiti testant Members were, it would not be right to adr PIO! at all ; while, on the other h an d, h e was no t dispose" lie P P ' any restriction upon their conscienti ous exercise of t 0 vilege ensured to them. He believed that the gentian% 0 that admitted had the same hopes and fears beyond the g ray lead himself had, and he was, therefore, satisfied gra y it to their consciences to determine what course the Y wo uld pursue. Those who framed that oath thought that lied b 1 be adhered to, and that great caution would be obserrwah those Hon Members in dealing with subjects conneetevor hi, the Protestant Established Church.—( Hear, hear.) F o rth' own part he now believed that if those Hon. Merab e l t s Roman Catholic faith who had voted for this Bill 'n . g istetl . ginal state had conceived that its provisions were inconihaff with the safety of the Protestant Church, they would new iS supported it.—(Hear, hear, hear.) And he conceived,Loll having come to an opinion on the probable effects of t u4 :00 6 different from that entertained by him (Sir J. Graham) 1. Hon. Members had acted with a conscientious regard 7.por oath which they had taken.—(Hear, hear.) But anoth e hich tion of the speech of his Hon. and Learned F r iend, on " ii ired he felt bound to make comment, was that in which bo i l l e cor how the Hon. and Learned Record er o f Dublin cen la o s tb_ j is cile his vote in 1834 on the titheuestion with his cote llif ,- Bill ? On that occasion he (Sir J. Graham) voted 'el. The J Althorp and a great portion of his Majesty's Ministere; a s al l opinion of Lord Althorp was, that 40 per cent.lde (Sniff unreasonable concession to the Irish landlords. cu re ' it J. Graham) now supported the present m e t . OPti commutation, because he thought 25 per ce l l : pli, the whole a reasonable rate. In some cases, perhaPsPuo se e be too high, and in some, perhaps, too low, but ta 1b whole it was a reasonable rate. This, however, Wa s . fl lll 5 only reason for which he (Sir J. Graham) had vote ct 8 t the 40 per cen t. p r i nc i p l e i n th e measur e in questi on. t by th; said to be a measure forced upon the Coverall °, i abie_ Hon. and L earne d M em b er f or Kilkenny on conditionw s s isv he (Sir J. G ra h am ) t h oug h t un j us tifi a ble ; but it 4 ° o e 0 accompanied by a statement that although it g 3ve i was i t a cent. to the Irish l an dl or ds, yet that 32 per cent. on L Y 0 be given t o th e P ro t es t an t Clergy, and that 1 25,0° d . be app ro p r i ate d i n li eu f rom t h e , Consolidated Fun ig (Sir J. Graham) considered this a preposterous fa ---e lar ge most unreasonable demand—one which took (00 0p006.1 grant for the Irish landlords, and at the same time varrie.; a great burthen on the country. The Hoe. a, nd Hot t h m i Gentleman asked, however, whether' we thong r u t tic y tx acs bonus alone w o uld tranquillize I re l an d. why, ' o osil h e to proceed on that principle, and to shape tl eie he iod, according to what was expected to tranquillize Xtehlisbe.,o could tell them that until the Protestant was Church in Ireland was totally overt h ro wn ther_ c ocio ilhl; hope of satisfyi n g th ose w h o demanded the tried pr od° p tion of Ireland. On thi s pa r t o f th e subject he et'Ll e s, a witness whose testim on y wou ld sc arcely be trip the fet, showed that there was not the slightest chance tha t apn oea sure would be satisfacto r y t o th e I r i s h people. I le ifoll• $ n ef a letter from the Ho n . M em b er f or Dundalk to the words Learned Member for Kilkenny. These wan the 6°l°l • that Hon. Member on thi subject : 0 What signifies such a s settlement of tithes as thcvicci frO ment Bill offers? 360,0001. a year is still to be 1e id e the r . him—a small fracti on t o go to the schools, which w0! . ..... tia t sig n ; wise have been p a id f or out o f t h e national. funds. . C r nifies to the poor man whether there are corporatioT /13e.; corporations, or 12 corporations, or 50 corporationareisiatio..' signify only as respects the grand principle of just ]What is tr a but what value to him are principles practically ? be wan °+ grand practical principle of British legislation which ta%at'° That the la n d e d proprietor s h a ll h e res ponsible by deril under just li m it at i ons , f or t h e con di t i on o f those w", wa nt° from him. If ever an y country on the face of t he eartuocimiont this provision it i s Ireland, and yet the National As% o the a is to take n o cognizance of this qu estion. Ho w rna tr l frele ° matters connected with the rights and interests ° the t: could be noticed o f even greater importance than, for tha which are stated above, and yet all are thrown a n si a L e rnio n " purpose of supporting those nonentities which the -- offer in satisfaction of the claims of Ireland." Dun dalk' This was the opinion o f th e H on . Member for aging' who, with perfe c t cons i s t ency , vote d ag ainst the third of this Bill. He was hostile to the proposed eo n ! no because he f e lt th a t t h e people of Ireland would ha_ c ci Mein neat from it, a n d h e appealed to the Hon. and Learric.s.no,h. ber for Kilkenny to use his power with that Ministry, 'secure said, depend e d on his breath for existence, in order to mom' some real benefit to the peole of Ireland. The 0 % 5 ba!: ber also said in the same letter—" The poor man ".seieriii taught that it was a matter, not of amount, but of e°," oo d oP; and of duty to his country, against insult, tyrannY, com es 0 pression. If this principle is to be given up, it . be tha t fight about straws." The Hon. Member also said tb°s appropriation clause itself was a matter of indifferenc.e:as people of Ireland, but that they would remain aft°, rv ` . r Se e hostile as ever to the Protestant Established Che'"..„set not the principle done all it could do ? Had it net r Government of the Right Hon. Baronet the Menthec',' j o s Tu e; worth ?—(Hear, and a laugh)—had it not succeed 'L or al curing for Ministers the support of the Hon. a nd n or% Member for Kilkenny ?—( Hear, hear) —his very not ed as ro dia; support—( Hear, hear)—and had it binding principle between Ministers and their u T l ‘ t 4 T ol 'her f e t supporters ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Hon. the i Middlesex had put the case very strongly the measures of the Government must accord ° w it c f e rred;a ings of the people. The elections had been rwhat djt when paid fee:o in the gross: lie would refer to a few in detail. a fi r. ) Nottingham say to the appropri a tion clause ?--( ne i t disc rejected it. What did Merionethshire say to it? /cheers" garded it.—( Hear, hear.) E ssex ?it despised it t ° What did Warwickshire say t o t h a t c lause? It launjoiber; ad soon n.—(Renewed cheers.)—[An Hon. Member : land !"1 —Ay, what did they think of Cumberland 400' cheering.) He thanked the Hon. Member for that oL ub j e ct, It brought him at once to a ; somewhat melanehats Mare u ; which he was approaching It might be said by ":" -: ne hers opposite that the cities and g towns alone con‘a l ti 0 00: true public opinion. A lamented and respected frien_oooo with whom he had always acted and voted, had bon w t. fle on account of the part he had taken on this very subje c ha d the had ‘ her for represented the city of Newcastle—a city which lea 00 advantage of a visit from the Hon. and Learned II s K u i p l p k o e r n t n e y r — 0 f( the p A o s d i m t i n n is ch t r e a e t i r o s n ) — 0 f w i. h o o r d appeared urntehr :JOSS the